OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY

Curriculum Council

MINUTES - #10.24.02

Thursday, October 24, 2002

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

N. Scott, Chair – Crop and Soil Science

I. Delson for J. Good – College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences

J. Dorbolo – Instructional Technology

J. Drexler – Business

L. Flick – Science and Math Education

L. Friedman -- Public Health

J. Gross – Anthropology

K. Higgins – Education

K. Hunter-Zaworski – Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering

 

 

NON-VOTING MEMBERS, SUPPORT STAFF, AND GUESTS PRESENT:

 

M. Abbott – Academic Programs

B. Bontrager – Enrollment Management

V. Tolar Burton for Bob Burton – Academic Programs

W. Loveland – Budgets and Fiscal Planning

M. Rhodes – Registrars

 

 

I.             APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from October 10th were approved with a minor amendment. 

 

REPORT FROM CURRICULUM COUNCIL CHAIR ( N. Scott) – N. Scott reported that she had received an update on the status of all pending Category I and Category II proposals from M. Abbott.  There are essentially still two tracking systems for proposals—Category I proposals and Category II proposals which involve options, minors, and degree requirements are still tracked in the "old" database.  Category II proposals involving course changes are logged into the curricular software system, which seems to be moving the proposals along effectively.  The Council discussed ways to get more information from the departments when needed, without sending proposals back into the electronic queue (e.g. using the "request for info" link to send an email to the proposal's originator).   

 

N. Scott opened a preliminary discussion on the topic of priority registration.  Currently, student athletes and students with disabilities have priority registration.  The idea had surfaced to allow students with high GPA's priority registration as well, but the Council expressed concern that this would only advantage those who are already doing well, while further disadvantaging those who need more help getting into the right classes. 

 

The Council also expressed concern about access to classes in general.  K. Hunter-Zaworski explained that some sophomore-level students in Engineering are stalled in their programs or are forced to classes at Linn Benton Community College because of lack of access to required courses at OSU.  The Council would like more information on how many student credit hours are lost due to lack of access to classes.  The Council also recognizes the tendency students have of only wanting to register for classes during "convenient" times, a habit which has led the University of Oregon to institute an incentive system to get students to register for courses during off-peak hours. 

 

Ultimately, the Council recognizes that somebody has to register last, which is a distinct disadvantage; in general, the Council favors the approach of distributing this disadvantage equally, the way the current system does.

 

 

II.            REPORT FROM ACADEMIC AFFAIRS (V. Tolar Burton for B. Burton) – V. Tolar Burton reported that there is unofficial word that the Oregon University System (OUS) is working on ways to further simplify the process of approving Category I proposals, by keeping the process more centered on the respective campuses.

 

III.           OLD BUSINESS

 

OSU 2007 and the implementation of curricular review (B. Bontrager) – B. Bontrager presented the rationale behind Enrollment Management's (EM) OSU 2007 proposal, which suggests changes to the administrative structure of the curricular proposal review process.  He recognized that the EM OSU 2007 proposal does not have unanimous support, and that he and B. Burton have differing opinions on its merits. 

 

B. Bontrager explained that the primary driver behind the proposal was improving student retention.  Shifting responsibilities for curricular processing from the Office of Academic Programs to the Office of the Registrar (a unit within Enrollment Management) could potentially increase the capacity of the Office of Academic Programs to concentrate on other key issues of student retention, such as faculty development and advising.  B. Bontrager stressed that curricular decisions will still be made by the faculty.

 

Curriculum Council members were unclear of exactly what the proposed structure would look like, and asked for a specific example of a Category II proposal moving through the system, as proposed in EM's recommendations.  Though B. Bontrager did not provide a specific example or a visual representation of the changes, he and M. Rhodes explained that the EM recommendations would reduce the amount of communication and interchange necessary once a proposal has been approved and must be inputted into the Banner system.  Under the current structure, the Catalog Office (a unit within Academic Programs) acts as a "middle man" between the proposing academic unit and the Registrar's Office, which EM believes leads to loss of time and energy, as well as the potential for miscommunication and error.  Therefore, EM recommends a consolidation of functions.

 

L. Friedman asked how the proposed new structure would increase the effectiveness of the current system.  B. Bontrager agreed that effectiveness would not necessarily be increased, at least initially, and he reiterated that the Office of Academic Programs has been very effective at managing the proposal process.  He does feel that in the long run, effectiveness could be improved, and that in the short run, the efficiency of the process could be improved by moving it to EM.  He reiterated that faculty involvement in reviewing proposals would not be compromised, and that EM would only be involved in the implementation aspect of the process.

 

N. Scott stated that she feels that the curricular tracking system is part of the curricular review process, and is not merely a clerical function.  Thus, she feels that it is important that this process be controlled by the faculty, through the Office of Academic Programs.  All agreed that the current curricular review software system has already vastly improved the curricular review process, and that the problem of missing information and incomplete proposals has been almost eliminated. 

 

W. Loveland asked about the magnitude of the problem—i.e. how many staff hours are involved in tracking or inputting information into the curricular review software?  M. Rhodes answered that this only takes a few minutes.

 

V. Tolar Burton provided an example of a particular curricular proposal and made the point that what may look like simply moving a proposal through the system by clicking buttons on a computer screen can actually be the faculty shaping curriculum in significant ways.

 

B. Bontrager concluded his discussion with the Curriculum Council by reiterating that EM is looking for ways to enhance efficiency and that they feel this change in the structure of the curricular review process is worth exploring.  If this change is not made, he feels that other responsibilities would have to be shifted in order to increase the capacity for some office to focus on important issues such as retention. 

 

B. Bontrager excused himself from the meeting and requested that N. Scott provide him with a summary of the Curriculum Council's response to the recommendations.  He would like to reflect the Curriculum Council's concerns and comments in his recommendations. 

 

V. Tolar Burton pointed out that as part of EM's recommendations, the Catalog Office staff (currently part of Academic Programs) would also be moved to Enrollment Management, raising the question of whether there really would be increased capacity within the Office of Academic Programs.

 

Several Curriculum Council members expressed concern that there still may be information in the recommendations that is not clear to them, and that the recommendations may not be solidly based on accurate information and an a clear understanding of the system.  They also felt that the idea of increasing capacity in the Office of Academic Programs was nebulous, particularly since staff in that office would be reduced.  More concentration on issues of student retention might better be achieved by increasing staff in the Office of Academic Programs, or by adding instructors to improve access to classes. 

 

J. Drexler stated that in his opinion the curricular review process should stay as close as possible to tenured faculty, and that it is important that the process be managed by an academic with teaching and research experience.  M. Rhodes pointed out that there are individuals within the Registrar's Office who meet that criteria.  J. Drexler also pointed out that in the future, changes and upgrades may need to be made to the review process, and that again, he feels these prerogatives should stay as close as possible to the faculty.  W. Loveland made a final comment that the amount of time and effort spent discussing the EM recommendations did not seem worth the potential gains it would bring.

 

N. Scott will draft a summary of the Curriculum Council's response to the recommendations, and will circulate it to Curriculum Council members before sending it to B. Bontrager.

 

IV.          NEW BUSINESS

 

Changing Admission Policies – N. Scott reported that she attended an Enrollment Management meeting earlier in the day on the topic of changing admission policies at OSU.  Enrollment Management is recommending that OSU keep the 3.0 GPA minimum standard for regular admissions, but eliminate the use of the GPA/SAT sliding scale for students who don't meet the standard admission criteria.  They recommend instead implementing a research-based alternative admission procedure (more behavioral in nature) which is purported to better predict students' potential for academic success.

 

The Council briefly discussed whether the University "oversells" a four-year degree, when in some cases it may not be appropriate or the student has little chance of success.  The Council would like to find ways to improve students' chances of success in their courses and in their degree objectives.  For instance, K. Hunter-Zaworski suggests that prerequisites requirements be better enforced.  I. Delson and others would like to see improved access to classes to help students make timely progress toward graduation.

 

 

NEXT MEETING: Thursday, October 31st, 1:15-3:00pm in the MU Boardroom. 

 

 

To check the status of Category I and Category II proposals, visit:

 

http://osu.orst.edu/admin/uap/curriculum_database/  for all Category I proposals, for Category II proposals dealing with degree requirements, minors, and options, and for all Baccalaureate Core course proposals.

 

http://curriculum.bus.oregonstate.edu/search.aspx for Category II proposals for new courses, course changes, or dropping courses (submitted through the online system).

 

Course proposal actions taken by the Council since the last meeting: None